"Xfce is just as customizable as KDE or GNOME, so I set myself a goal: make Xubuntu look like Windows Vista. Though you won't be told how to achieve the exact same end result, this guide provides comprehensive instructions helping you make Xubuntu look the way you want it to. In any case, I would certainly not recommend such a setup for someone new to Xubuntu. Xubuntu is different than Windows; making it look similar is only confusing."

No, I'm just concluding that XFCE is not "resource saving": neither compared to other Linux dekstop alternatives, nor to a bloated version of Windows like XP. It used to be yers ago; it's time to stop spreading this rumor now.

Consider that the last version of enlightenment is considerably faster than just xfwm4 alone while having ten times as eye candy. And I don't consider enlightenment a good example of "conservative design".

I'm not trying to put you down or anything, but if you have any data showing that XFCE4.4 is more resource demanding than Windows Vista, or even XP, on any comtemporary Linux distribution, I sure would like to see it.

No, I'm just concluding that XFCE is not "resource saving": neither compared to other Linux dekstop alternatives, nor to a bloated version of Windows like XP. It used to be yers ago; it's time to stop spreading this rumor now.

In my humble opinion I agree. Canonical should move their attention from Xubuntu to Fluxbuntu. I tried Xubuntu 7.04 on system equipped with Celeron 400, 128 MB RAM and old PCI Virge DX card. Result was disastrous. Even XP was a little bit faster on that system.